To my eyes, you appear to be lumping two arguments together, which are wholly separate. First, that pirating software is illegal. Second, that pirating software is "wrong."
Now, the first argument (for now, probably forever) is unequivocally true. The second argument cannot be referred to as a "fact" as you did in your post. Laws are arbitrary, software licenses are arbitrary, the fact that piracy hurts software creators is wholly unproven (and, if you understand the nature of such things, can never actually be proven 100%), and the wrongness of this particular act is far from an absolute law of nature.
I happen to believe that "pirating" software is not morally wrong, and does not necessarily hurt software creators and companies. This is somewhat besides the point as I find many people have been outlining my position quite well, and I wish not spend my day re-writing their arguments and being repetitive about it. I simply get annoyed when people entire the debate and state as an immutable fact that piracy is morally wrong, that all arguments to the contrary are just whiny complaints, and that we all will just have to accept that. I'm sorry, but just because something is a law, does not even come close to making it right, and I do not have to just accept it.
Readers might have tuned out the rest of your comment after your first sentence essentially boiled down all comparisons to "hairsplitting," so I wanted to highlight something else that was said at the end.
"No matter how many complaints you may come up with to justify your use of pirated software and how meritous those your complaints may be they still don't make using software without purchasing a license to do so from the software's manufacturer any less wrong."
Are you seriously suggesting that argumentation no longer holds any meaning? Because it sounds like you are saying that you know the absolute truth of the universe, and that nothing that can be said, even if it is correct, can ever trump that.
I mean, you literally assert that no matter "how meritous those complaints may be" that it is still wrong.
Surely, you are simply exaggerating in an attempt to "prove" your point. Otherwise, you are showing a degree of contempt for the very mechanics of debate that is simply staggering.
First of all, thank you for treating me like a fool, and calling me one too. I'm trying to believe that you are not just a troll, but it gets a little hard when someone who speaks so much of philosophy is so insulting. I may be a Slashdot user, but I am not a computer technician, I am a Sociologist.
As for culture, your pathetic mind which has been manipulated by years of propaganda doesn't know what culture is.
Do you see? Do you see why people might think you are a troll?
Culture is a weapon, it is the very fabric of a people united in survival and the pursuit of prosperity.
Your use of "prosperity" here is loaded and inaccurate. Culture is not so specific a determinate. Plenty of cultures have no interest in prosperity. Unless you care to define a specialized definition.
In terms of survival, they are failures. I don't need to post evidence for this. Only a fool would claim otherwise and a casual stroll through any major city in India or anywhere in Southeast Asia would prove me right.
Once again, calling your opposition fools. But also you are suggesting that the burden of proof should be shifted, even though you are the one making the claim (and the claim that a particular culture is a failure, is a very large claim). Furthermore you are suggesting that we not only use anecdotal evidence to reach very complicated conclusions, but that we must reach the same conclusions that you have.
But since you clearly have no knowledge of the philosophical writings of which I speak, what would it matter anyhow?
Because I'm a fool right? Of course in my last post I mostly just suggested that such an absolute approach to complicated concepts such as "failure" and "success" might not be sound. Obviously I know nothing of philosophy.
It is for this reason their people can merely absorb western culture and not create their own.
Another huge claim. You claim that others merely absorb western culture, but more importantly you claim to know exactly why this happens. Do you see how this is a lot for you to state without anything to back it up. I am sorry if I don't think "it's obvious!" counts as a citation.
I'm not going to educate a fool like you in aesthetics, but suffice it to say it is a cornerstone of any healthy civilization.
Once again I ask, are aesthetics absolute? If they are, are they really the cornerstone? I may not be ignorant of philosophy as you hope. Maybe our teachers had vastly different teaching styles, mine taught me that there are few absolutes, and to always question.
Oh, and you asked what culture had to do with race. I'll admit here that maybe I misjudged you, what you've written comes off pretty insulting and dismissive. But maybe you are not prejudiced against race at all, in which case I will drop my implied accusation.
Good thing too, because without this preface I might have been confused when you said:
...It is one of the many reasons their cultures are total failures...
The arrogance of labelling a culture (any culture) as a failure astounds me. What do you mean "failure"? It is an interesting philisophical stance for you to take, labelling failure and success as absolute concepts. As if failure and success actually existed as empirical fact.
Aside from that, you cannot back up your claims. You claim that family connections are valued because they are the only relationships that can be trusted. This is a bold claim. Thank God we have arm-chair anthropologists and sociologists like you to make logical leaps like this, without research. I imagine the research to demonstrate this would take a really long time, so this is a great time-saver.
I seem to recall that Wolverine has a great deal of money saved with Landau, Luckman and Lake. The multi-dimensional mysterious firm type people. Since it is Wolverine though, it's all pretty shrowded in mystery though. Of course this would also not apply to Ultimate Wolverine.
Farscape reminded me of those cheesy seventies kiddie shows like "Jason of Star Command". Really dumb plots, reasonably dumb one-note characters, cheap-looking Dr. Who-caliber sets. Does it get better later on? How many bad Farscape episodes does one have to slog through to get to the good ones?
Well, actually, it depends. Unfortunately, as with many shows I love, the first season of Farscape has a lot of very low points. They had a chronic case of one-shot episodes, which was basically mandated to avoid alienating potential new viewers. Near the end of the first season, and for every season afterwards, it really becomes one of the best shows on TV. Maybe read some episode summeries to get through the first several DVD's and start in near the last 5 episodes or so of the first season. It would be well worth your while.
I tried telling my girlifriend this joke (she did have ADHD), and before I could get to the punchline she interrupted me to talk about some bird she saw at school. Never did get back to saying the punchline.
I'd like to think she knew the joke, and was making a funny point of her own. Sadly, this was an all too common occurance.
"No one in the military would make life or death decisions based on a machine translation," Benjamin said.
I would really like to believe this is true, and I hesitate to admit a lack of trust in soldiers to follow this common sense guideline. Still, it is all too easy to imagine situations in which time is limited, stress is high, and this new translator is the only thing available.
"You are aware, of course, that the United States was getting more oil from Iraq pre-war than they are now?"
Wow, really? I did not know that. But I think maybe that is a really bold claim to make without any attempt at a citation or source.
Considering that demand for oil is continually growing, and considering that the U.S. has quite literally taken control of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. What source is telling you that we have decreased our supply of oil from them? How could that make sense?
Your Iraq comment is nonsensical, but worth bringing up. I guess.
Why does the U.S. need to secure vast amounts of oil? Because adequate sources of energy are critical to preserving and expanding the power, wealth, and influence of the U.S.
Why does this energy have to come from oil? Because if we switched to something else, although we might maintain or expand our current wealth, it might be other people (read: not oil companies and those that profit specifically from oil) who will be wealthy.
There is a lot of interconnections between those who profit from oil, and those who run our politics (usually completely overt connections). This need not be an observation strictly about any one politician, or any particular party.
OK, so is it starting to become clear why it might be more expensive to pollute less? In this case, I am simplistically tying "polluting less" to "not using oil for energy" but I'm sure you get the idea.
If anyone is going to use the argument that economic forces shape our environmental policies. Therefore, people will only do what is profitable (the assumption being that right now, using oil-alternatives is not as profitable). Then I wonder if you truly believe that this is a "free market" issue, and that the U.S. Government is not actively assisting the profits of the most egregious polluters.
Now, this could be completely baseless. But so often things like this are boiled down to such simple, best-case-scenario type explanations. OK, so this new material does a great job of breaking down certain pollutants into benign substances. That is fantastic.
What about other pollutants? What about every pollutant? Look, I'm not nearly qualified to get into the science of this, but there is a lot to account for in this kind of research. Throw some plastic bags and some newspapers in the incinerator, and one of the byproducts will likely be dioxins, one of the most toxic substances there is. Dangerous non-linear consequences to waste/pollution "solutions" are frequent, because the research is often cursory at best, and people want their particular "solution" to succeed.
Of course, this could be completely safe. But the article did not exactly inspire joyful optimism in me. When we try to slap a band aid on an obvious problem (rampant air pollution), we often end up with serious unexpected new problems.
Transformers are giant robots that mutate into technological creations.
Transformers are giant robots that remodel into technological creations.
Transformers are giant robots that convert into technological creations.
Do I need to go on? Synonyms have their use, but the whole point of different words, is that the definitions are not identical. How exactly is your blanket statement insight?
I for one really, truly, honestly, would like to see some actual studies on downloading music as an impact on recording industry profits. I would like to see studies conducted with due scientific rigor, with fully documented methodology and results.
I have not spent a great deal of time specifically looking for these studies, but am I wrong to wonder why the existance or nonexistance of such important considerations never seems to enter the public debate?
Why is the RIAA allowed to assert these claims of lost/stolen profits? Although personally I believe their claims to be philophically/intellectually/economically bankrupt, that does not hold much weight either without proper scientific study.
And no, their "estimates" do not count, not until methodology is fully published, debated, and tested among scientists who are not paid for a specific conclusion.
The point is that "microwaves damage DNA" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. "Some studies support it and some do not" simply doesn't qualify.
This has been said with similar phrasing a few times so far.
It is simply a ridiculous viewpoint. Now, granted, this is how any self-respecting scientist should think. Anyone of any intelligence should understand completely where you are coming from with your skepticism, and I applaud your critical questions.
But! I submit the view that to continue using cellphones, and thinking that they are completely safe, just because half the studies say so... is ridiculous.
It is a humanitarian responsibility to prove beyond reasonable scientific doubt that a product is completely safe before everyone starts using/consuming/walking around with that product. You wouldn't eat some new food just because about half the studies assert that it probably isn't a deadly poison right?
Granted, I use my cellphone constantly, but only because I'm weak willed.
Slashdot Mirror
To my eyes, you appear to be lumping two arguments together, which are wholly separate. First, that pirating software is illegal. Second, that pirating software is "wrong."
Now, the first argument (for now, probably forever) is unequivocally true. The second argument cannot be referred to as a "fact" as you did in your post. Laws are arbitrary, software licenses are arbitrary, the fact that piracy hurts software creators is wholly unproven (and, if you understand the nature of such things, can never actually be proven 100%), and the wrongness of this particular act is far from an absolute law of nature.
I happen to believe that "pirating" software is not morally wrong, and does not necessarily hurt software creators and companies. This is somewhat besides the point as I find many people have been outlining my position quite well, and I wish not spend my day re-writing their arguments and being repetitive about it. I simply get annoyed when people entire the debate and state as an immutable fact that piracy is morally wrong, that all arguments to the contrary are just whiny complaints, and that we all will just have to accept that. I'm sorry, but just because something is a law, does not even come close to making it right, and I do not have to just accept it.
Readers might have tuned out the rest of your comment after your first sentence essentially boiled down all comparisons to "hairsplitting," so I wanted to highlight something else that was said at the end.
"No matter how many complaints you may come up with to justify your use of pirated software and how meritous those your complaints may be they still don't make using software without purchasing a license to do so from the software's manufacturer any less wrong."
Are you seriously suggesting that argumentation no longer holds any meaning? Because it sounds like you are saying that you know the absolute truth of the universe, and that nothing that can be said, even if it is correct, can ever trump that.
I mean, you literally assert that no matter "how meritous those complaints may be" that it is still wrong.
Surely, you are simply exaggerating in an attempt to "prove" your point. Otherwise, you are showing a degree of contempt for the very mechanics of debate that is simply staggering.
As for culture, your pathetic mind which has been manipulated by years of propaganda doesn't know what culture is.
Do you see? Do you see why people might think you are a troll?
Culture is a weapon, it is the very fabric of a people united in survival and the pursuit of prosperity.
Your use of "prosperity" here is loaded and inaccurate. Culture is not so specific a determinate. Plenty of cultures have no interest in prosperity. Unless you care to define a specialized definition.
In terms of survival, they are failures. I don't need to post evidence for this. Only a fool would claim otherwise and a casual stroll through any major city in India or anywhere in Southeast Asia would prove me right.
Once again, calling your opposition fools. But also you are suggesting that the burden of proof should be shifted, even though you are the one making the claim (and the claim that a particular culture is a failure, is a very large claim). Furthermore you are suggesting that we not only use anecdotal evidence to reach very complicated conclusions, but that we must reach the same conclusions that you have.
But since you clearly have no knowledge of the philosophical writings of which I speak, what would it matter anyhow?
Because I'm a fool right? Of course in my last post I mostly just suggested that such an absolute approach to complicated concepts such as "failure" and "success" might not be sound. Obviously I know nothing of philosophy.
It is for this reason their people can merely absorb western culture and not create their own.
Another huge claim. You claim that others merely absorb western culture, but more importantly you claim to know exactly why this happens. Do you see how this is a lot for you to state without anything to back it up. I am sorry if I don't think "it's obvious!" counts as a citation.
I'm not going to educate a fool like you in aesthetics, but suffice it to say it is a cornerstone of any healthy civilization.
Once again I ask, are aesthetics absolute? If they are, are they really the cornerstone? I may not be ignorant of philosophy as you hope. Maybe our teachers had vastly different teaching styles, mine taught me that there are few absolutes, and to always question.
Oh, and you asked what culture had to do with race. I'll admit here that maybe I misjudged you, what you've written comes off pretty insulting and dismissive. But maybe you are not prejudiced against race at all, in which case I will drop my implied accusation.
Good thing too, because without this preface I might have been confused when you said:
The arrogance of labelling a culture (any culture) as a failure astounds me. What do you mean "failure"? It is an interesting philisophical stance for you to take, labelling failure and success as absolute concepts. As if failure and success actually existed as empirical fact.
Aside from that, you cannot back up your claims. You claim that family connections are valued because they are the only relationships that can be trusted. This is a bold claim. Thank God we have arm-chair anthropologists and sociologists like you to make logical leaps like this, without research. I imagine the research to demonstrate this would take a really long time, so this is a great time-saver.
I seem to recall that Wolverine has a great deal of money saved with Landau, Luckman and Lake. The multi-dimensional mysterious firm type people. Since it is Wolverine though, it's all pretty shrowded in mystery though. Of course this would also not apply to Ultimate Wolverine.
Well, actually, it depends. Unfortunately, as with many shows I love, the first season of Farscape has a lot of very low points. They had a chronic case of one-shot episodes, which was basically mandated to avoid alienating potential new viewers. Near the end of the first season, and for every season afterwards, it really becomes one of the best shows on TV. Maybe read some episode summeries to get through the first several DVD's and start in near the last 5 episodes or so of the first season. It would be well worth your while.
I'd like to think she knew the joke, and was making a funny point of her own. Sadly, this was an all too common occurance.
I would really like to believe this is true, and I hesitate to admit a lack of trust in soldiers to follow this common sense guideline. Still, it is all too easy to imagine situations in which time is limited, stress is high, and this new translator is the only thing available.
Wow, really? I did not know that. But I think maybe that is a really bold claim to make without any attempt at a citation or source.
Considering that demand for oil is continually growing, and considering that the U.S. has quite literally taken control of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. What source is telling you that we have decreased our supply of oil from them? How could that make sense?
Why does the U.S. need to secure vast amounts of oil? Because adequate sources of energy are critical to preserving and expanding the power, wealth, and influence of the U.S.
Why does this energy have to come from oil? Because if we switched to something else, although we might maintain or expand our current wealth, it might be other people (read: not oil companies and those that profit specifically from oil) who will be wealthy.
There is a lot of interconnections between those who profit from oil, and those who run our politics (usually completely overt connections). This need not be an observation strictly about any one politician, or any particular party.
OK, so is it starting to become clear why it might be more expensive to pollute less? In this case, I am simplistically tying "polluting less" to "not using oil for energy" but I'm sure you get the idea.
If anyone is going to use the argument that economic forces shape our environmental policies. Therefore, people will only do what is profitable (the assumption being that right now, using oil-alternatives is not as profitable). Then I wonder if you truly believe that this is a "free market" issue, and that the U.S. Government is not actively assisting the profits of the most egregious polluters.
What about other pollutants? What about every pollutant? Look, I'm not nearly qualified to get into the science of this, but there is a lot to account for in this kind of research. Throw some plastic bags and some newspapers in the incinerator, and one of the byproducts will likely be dioxins, one of the most toxic substances there is. Dangerous non-linear consequences to waste/pollution "solutions" are frequent, because the research is often cursory at best, and people want their particular "solution" to succeed.
Of course, this could be completely safe. But the article did not exactly inspire joyful optimism in me. When we try to slap a band aid on an obvious problem (rampant air pollution), we often end up with serious unexpected new problems.
I don't know why you think it's a sign of the times that the media is using synonyms.
From dictionary.com
Synonyms for "Transform":
Alter, commute, convert, mutate, remodel, reconstruct, revamp, transmute....
Transformers are giant robots that mutate into technological creations.
Transformers are giant robots that remodel into technological creations.
Transformers are giant robots that convert into technological creations.
Do I need to go on? Synonyms have their use, but the whole point of different words, is that the definitions are not identical. How exactly is your blanket statement insight?
I have not spent a great deal of time specifically looking for these studies, but am I wrong to wonder why the existance or nonexistance of such important considerations never seems to enter the public debate?
Why is the RIAA allowed to assert these claims of lost/stolen profits? Although personally I believe their claims to be philophically/intellectually/economically bankrupt, that does not hold much weight either without proper scientific study.
And no, their "estimates" do not count, not until methodology is fully published, debated, and tested among scientists who are not paid for a specific conclusion.
The point is that "microwaves damage DNA" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. "Some studies support it and some do not" simply doesn't qualify.
This has been said with similar phrasing a few times so far.
It is simply a ridiculous viewpoint. Now, granted, this is how any self-respecting scientist should think. Anyone of any intelligence should understand completely where you are coming from with your skepticism, and I applaud your critical questions.
But! I submit the view that to continue using cellphones, and thinking that they are completely safe, just because half the studies say so... is ridiculous.
It is a humanitarian responsibility to prove beyond reasonable scientific doubt that a product is completely safe before everyone starts using/consuming/walking around with that product. You wouldn't eat some new food just because about half the studies assert that it probably isn't a deadly poison right?
Granted, I use my cellphone constantly, but only because I'm weak willed.